Ah that makes cents.

True, one person needs an account. You used to be able to do Jitsi - and before it other webrtc calling solutions - with no account at all but now Jitsi also needs the first host to sign in.

But Signal calls, every participant must have a Signal account. The others, I can invite people to join with no account.

“Browser tech”? Just the fact you can make it work from a browser without needing to install anything else. Again, Signal isn’t set up for that kind of thing. It’s just designed and extended from a different use case.

Jitsi. Even zoom and teams allow joining without an account. Good ol’ webrtc and browser tech.

Is that photo really that Pyramid? I thought it was some basaltic intrusion or something!

iNsTaLl aRcH aKsHuLlY iT wOrKs

I don’t see colour; I’m not racist.

Yes. That looks exactly like the Egyptian pyramids. I can’t see any difference at all.

That’s so you can run it off the mains.

“tl;dr”

Malloc

That’s a good cat name!

Blue blood may be cool, but red blood is better for you.

=> Nobility is fashionable, but it’s healthier to be a peasant.

Also, from this table I learn that Europeans of ages past were ruled by octopodes.

Black, the dark of ages past.

if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn’t want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?

It’s more like, should be be forced to sell them to someone else who will put their own messages on the t-shirt with his face.

As to the cattle brand (and less so the t-shirts), the cattle are valuable property regardless of his branding. The social media account is the branding. To forceably sell the cattle is quite different from forceably selling the brand with his name.

It goes further: the real value of his social media handle, I imagine, is the number of subscribers it has. Are subscribers an asset to be bought and sold? Capitalism thinks so. But I think they’re not ‘his’ assets, they’re the choices of those subscribers. To ‘buy’ them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.

If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn’t have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to?

The money they earned - exactly! Not forcing them to keep doing porn. Of course this case isn’t extreme like that.

how much of his ‘likeness’ is being sold is debatable to begin with

No it’s not. The value is that it is (was) his Alex Jones account, presumably with his subscribers too. Or are there a bunch of other Alex Jonses clamouring to have the handle freed so they can have the name fresh for themselves? I’m sure they’d like it; but that’s not the value in this case.

Wipe his Twitter account - if you think deplatforming is an appropriate action. Let another person buy the name fresh (and be sued if they use it to pretend they are him). Take his real assets and sell them. But taking his Twitter account as is and selling it seems, IMHO, the wrong sort of capitalism.

That’s a fair point. It seems rather awkward. Selling off the assets of said talk show, easy decision. Selling the brand, though, if it’s tied to your person / personal name, that seems dubious. Especially against the named person’s will.

For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person’s consent. I can sell permission for my face to be on your t-shirt, but being forced to seems wrong. In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.

The precedent troubles me. That a media account in a personal name, even if through that one does commercial or objectionable things, can become a commodity to buy and sell - and be forced to sell.

The same precedent applies to ordinary people too. Should a debt collector acquire your Facebook page? Because you used Facebook marketplace it’s now a business asset?

I don’t think that changes it. He uses the likeness of his face also; if some ad company wants to buy the rights to the likeness of his face is he forced to sell?

True I didn’t read the article though.

This seems very bizarre to me. Is the argument, someone could make money off your account therefore it’s an asset that can be sold off? Next I suppose we should sell his body off into prostitution.

Still, nice to see Lemmy wholeheartedly supporting capitalism for once…

Ooh, I know, next force him to sell his Steam account!

Thank you for that link. I was puzzled though when I opened it and saw a cartoon elephant.

And what’s he doing, spending money?

I require a small cottage at the end of the garden, and if you are to supply the holy water you will need to take appropriate care as to its transport in deion-shielded single-use containers.